The three-member Court of Appeal, Abuja, on Thursday struck out the terrorism charges slammed against the detained leader of of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu.
The court held that Kanu’s extradition from Kenya to Nigeria to stand trial was illegal.
Persecondnews recalls that Kanu was re-arraigned on an amended charge of 15 counts bordering on treasonable felony by the federal government following his extradition from Kenya to Nigeria.
Kanu had appealed the order that he should respond to seven out of the 15 count terrorism charges and approached the court to set aside the order at the Appeal Court.
While arguing the appeal, Kanu’s lawyer, Mr Mike Ozekhome (SAN), told the appeal court that Kanu was first arraigned on Dec. 23,2015, and granted bail on April 25, 2017.
He explained further that agents of federal government (the respondent) had launched a military operation, code named “Operation Python Dance” at the appellant’s home town in September 2017, which forced him to escape out of the country, to Isreal, then London.
Ozekhome recalled that on June 27 2021, the federal government forcefully arrested Kanu in Kenya and renditioned him back to Nigeria in most cruel and inhuman manner
“On 29 June, 2021, the appellant was taken to court by the federal government, where he was re-arraigned.
“Following the appellant’s preliminary objection to the 15-count charge preferred against him by the federal government, the trial judge, Justice Nyako of the Federal Hight Court Abuja, on April 8, 2022, struck out eight counts.
“Our humble submission is that the remaining seven counts ought not to be retained by the trial court because, before the time Kanu was renditioned to Nigeria from Kenya, he was facing five-count charge,” he told the court.
Ozekhome submitted that, going by Section 15 of the Extradition Act, Kanu is not supposed to be charged without the approval of Kenyan government.
“The remaining seven counts, cannot stand, being filed illegally without following due process under the rule of specialty as envisaged under Section 15 of the Extradition Act.
“Counts one, two, three, four, five and eight which were retained by the Federal High Court, were offences allegedly committed by the appellant (Kanu) before his forceful rendition to Nigeria.
“These allegations of rendition were never denied by the federal government and you cannot sustain the charge when you extradited the appellant without the approval of Kenyan authority.”
Ozekhome argued that when charging for an offence, one must mention the particulars and location where the office was committed.
“But in this case, the appellant was charged without stating where the offence was allegedly committed.”
He contended that by Section 45 (a) of the Federal High Court Act with regards to criminal charge, the trial court does not have “global jurisdiction”.
“More so, Section 195 and 196 of Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), state that a charge must have date, time, location etc.”
Ozekhome said there was no need for the Federal High Court to retain the remaining 7 counts, and therefore, urged the panel to take over the charges and strike them out.
He also asked the appellate panel to hold that the respondent has not furnished the court with any prima facie case against the appellant for which he is being charged.
Replying, counsel to the Federal Government, Mr David Kaswe, asked the court to dismiss the appeal for lack of merit.
Leave a comment